Politics Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

[riverman]

You were wrong, as I said.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/percent-of-americans-who-own-their-home/

67.35% of americans own their own home, 29.75% free and clear.

Clear indication that there's plenty of wealth to go around.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-30-outnumbered-cars_x.htm

For the first time, there are more vehicles than people to drive them in the average U.S. household.

So says the Transportation Department, which reports that there are 107 million U.S. households, each with an average of 1.9 cars, trucks or sport utility vehicles and 1.8 drivers. That equals 204 million vehicles and 191 million drivers, said the Bureau of Transportation Statistics Friday.

What's the matter, 1.9 cars per household not enough?

It's clear people are getting their panties in a wad over bullshit.

Jay Leno alone skews those stats...I know plenty of one car owners and you can see others with 12 in the driveway..cars are popular here...MRT lines haven't taken over yet

 

[blue32]

I'm not even close to the 1% and Bernie based on his calculation wants to tax me 2k more per year

heh, yeah DVISS and others will be quite surprised to find out how much they will be getting raped if this guy took office. 2.2% here for healthcare, extra %'s for Free College, etc. it doesn't end with this fucking twat. Everyone's hard earned money needs to go straight to the dip shits that don't deserve it, all in the name of 'fairness', er I mean 'democratic socialism".

 

[jlprk]

What's the matter, 1.9 cars per household not enough?

That's your justification for the top 1% owning 35% of America. And if that doesn't work, you'll quibble whether it's 36%. Hokay.

 

[Denny Crane]

You never respond, because you can't. Then in the next thread, you state the same falsehood...that the size of the deficit is due to numbers occurring during the Obama administration. You never take blame for the rich getting the giant tax break in 2001, suddenly destroying Clinton's miracle, having the nation paying off the whole accumulated deficit.

Then you say, the money is yours. As if by divine right, instead of from the arbitrary 2001 tax break you got.

I already responded. You can't handle the truth.

 

[jlprk]

I'm not even close to the 1% and Bernie based on his calculation wants to tax me 2k more per year

Your tax + health insurance will reduce. You're supposed to compare the combined total, not just the tax.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's your justification for the top 1% owning 35% of America. And if that doesn't work, you'll quibble whether it's 36%. Hokay.

I simply am not jealous of anyone who makes more than me. I don't care if the top 1% owns 99% of america as long as the remaining 99% can buy homes and cars and live good lives. Half the people make over $50K. The $50K figure matters a whole lot while the "make a lot of heat no light out of 1%" means nothing.

Let me put it another way. Would you rather everyone made $10K so it's equal, or the top 1% make gazillions and all the rest make $20K? Apparently you aren't happy that the people are making 2x as much.

 

[Denny Crane]

Jay Leno alone skews those stats...I know plenty of one car owners and you can see others with 12 in the driveway..cars are popular here...MRT lines haven't taken over yet

How can anyone afford a car, since the top 1% own everything?

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

Your tax + health insurance will reduce. You're supposed to compare the combined total, not just the tax.

I did

 

[riverman]

How can anyone afford a car, since the top 1% own everything?

The top 1% wouldn't have anything to do with my 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck Denny...or my neighbors 1987 Camry but go ahead and sign me up for the fortune 500 club...they're going to love me

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ch-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/

As far as we can tell, Sanders’ plan has not yet been analyzed by independent think tanks or academics. So we ran back-of-the-envelope estimates for revenue from Sanders’ health care taxes using2013 tax return data from the Internal Revenue Service.

By our napkin calculations, those making more than $200,000 — roughly the top 5 percent of income earners — would contribute about $117 billion to the single-payer system, while everyone else would pay in $126 billion. Payroll taxes yield an additional $432 billion for a total of $675 billion.

That’s still $599 billion short of what the country actually spent on health care in 2013

 

[dviss1]

Whose is it then? Current tax law gives the break to you, brokered by lobbyists for the rich. Bernie's tax law would give the break to me. Why does the accident of history, the arbitrary current subsidy to you, make it eternally your money?

Smack DOWN.

 

[jlprk]

I simply am not jealous of anyone who makes more than me. I don't care if the top 1% owns 99% of america as long as the remaining 99% can buy homes and cars and live good lives. Half the people make over $50K. The $50K figure matters a whole lot while the "make a lot of heat no light out of 1%" means nothing.

Let me put it another way. Would you rather everyone made $10K so it's equal, or the top 1% make gazillions and all the rest make $20K? Apparently you aren't happy that the people are making 2x as much.

Poor effort. If you really want to justify the top 1% owning 35%, you need to show that the nation's efficiency, the collective incentive to work, would diminish with more equality. To the contrary, with more reward to the poor, the poor's incentive to work would increase. In fact, the rich dividend collectors would see their incentive increase, too, to actually earn some money. The economy would become more efficient in all economic strata, the poor and the rich.

 

[Denny Crane]

The top 1% wouldn't have anything to do with my 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck Denny...or my neighbors 1987 Camry but go ahead and sign me up for the fortune 500 club...they're going to love me

My question was rhetorical. If you want a newer truck, I bet you could go get one. The top 1% aren't preventing you from living your life.

 

[Denny Crane]

Poor effort. If you really want to justify the top 1% owning 35%, you need to show that the nation's efficiency, the collective incentive to work, would diminish with more equality. To the contrary, with more reward to the poor, the poor's incentive to work would increase. In fact, the rich dividend collectors would see their incentive increase, too, to actually earn some money. The economy would become more efficient in all economic strata, the poor and the rich.

You can "figure" all you want, but figures lie and liars figure.

It's clear that people are owning their homes, so the top 1% owning 35% or 99% doesn't mean shit.

 

[Denny Crane]

Smack DOWN.

Current tax law gives NOBODY breaks. All it does it TAKE money from people.

 

[dviss1]

heh, yeah DVISS and others will be quite surprised to find out how much they will be getting raped if this guy took office. 2.2% here for healthcare, extra %'s for Free College, etc. it doesn't end with this fucking twat. Everyone's hard earned money needs to go straight to the dip shits that don't deserve it, all in the name of 'fairness', er I mean 'democratic socialism".

I have a 9 year old son. I will gladly pay more in taxes so he can go to college tuition free therefore NOT graduating 100K in debt.

 

[riverman]

My question was rhetorical. If you want a newer truck, I bet you could go get one. The top 1% aren't preventing you from living your life.

You're absolutely right...my value system is built from necessity and I'm a very frugal guy. I love the life I've chosen but I'm not money driven...that's a choice. There is a cap on retirement funds and I've stuck with it...hasn't made me wealthy but it'll cover the big bills in my senior years.

 

[jlprk]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ch-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/

As far as we can tell, Sanders’ plan has not yet been analyzed by independent think tanks or academics. So we ran back-of-the-envelope estimates for revenue from Sanders’ health care taxes using2013 tax return data from the Internal Revenue Service.

By our napkin calculations, those making more than $200,000 — roughly the top 5 percent of income earners — would contribute about $117 billion to the single-payer system, while everyone else would pay in $126 billion. Payroll taxes yield an additional $432 billion for a total of $675 billion.

That’s still $599 billion short of what the country actually spent on health care in 2013

Excellent, you just decided that Bernie is right. Since the U.S. spends $2.6 trillion per year on health care

http://www.aetna.com/health-reform-connection/aetnas-vision/facts-about-costs.html

and you say that all but $599 billion will be covered, that means that Bernie's plan will cover $2T. You admit that the taxpayer and employer cost will only
total $0.675T. Therefore, Bernie's health insurance program will save us 2 - .675= $1.325T.

 

[riverman]

I have a 9 year old son. I will gladly pay more in taxes so he can go to college tuition free therefore NOT graduating 100K in debt.

I think since he's just 9....you should invest in his academic success now...it paid off for me..my son got an academic scholarship from OSU on his achievements and grades alone...just had to buy books, pay some fees and work part time. You don't have to go into debt to get him through school if you get him ahead of the curve early on

 

[Denny Crane]

Excellent, you just decided that Bernie is right. Since the U.S. spends $2.6 trillion per year on health care

http://www.aetna.com/health-reform-connection/aetnas-vision/facts-about-costs.html

and you say that all but $0.6 trillion will be covered, that means that Bernie's plan will cover $2T. You admit that the taxpayer and employer cost will only
total $0.675T. Therefore, Bernie's health insurance program will save us 2 - .675= $1.325T.

Now you're babbling.

Bernie's plan is $.6T short EVERY year and not paid for.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ch-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/

Even if we set aside the issue of a potentially unbalanced ledger, experts point out several other problems with Sanders’ simple promise of savings.

First, it’s not guaranteed that workers will have the same quality or amount of care under a Medicare-for-all system.

Most employer-based health insurance policies currently have more comprehensive coverage than traditional Medicare, pointed out William Hsiao, a leading health economist at Harvard University who designed universal coverage systems for Vermont, China, Sweden, and South Africa, to name a few.

While Sanders argues that single-payer will make the health system more efficient, "we have seen no evidence of this from the Medicare program, whose cost has grown substantially faster than the economy for most of the last 50 years," Antos said.

Second, reduced costs could also create issues with access. Lower drug prices limit funding for research and development, lower physicians’ salaries disincentivize people going into medicine, lower fees could bankrupt hospitals, and people would have less choice in health plans, listed Hussey.

And finally, experts expressed skepticism that lawmakers would ever pass Sanders’ single-payer system, which would require a tax increase of hundreds of billions.

"Keep in mind each dollar saved is a reduction in someone’s income, which is part of why this plan is politically untenable," said Don Taylor, a professor of health policy at Duke University. "But if you could wave your hand and do it, we could spend less."

SMACK DOWN

 

[jlprk]

You can "figure" all you want, but figures lie and liars figure.

It's clear that people are owning their homes, so the top 1% owning 35% or 99% doesn't mean shit.

Really? You don't care, as long as everyone owns a car or a house? I'm glad I convinced you. So you don't think it matters if the top 1% are reduced to owning 1 or 2%. Great!

 

[Denny Crane]

Really? You don't care, as long as everyone owns a car or a house? I'm glad I convinced you. So you don't think it matters if the top 1% are reduced to owning 1 or 2%. Great!

More babbling.

I don't care as long as the top 1% aren't crowding out everyone else. They're not.

The only thing going on is people getting their panties in a wad over someone else making more or owning more than you.

Boo fucking hoo

 

[jlprk]

Excellent, you just decided that Bernie is right. Since the U.S. spends $2.6 trillion per year on health care

http://www.aetna.com/health-reform-connection/aetnas-vision/facts-about-costs.html

and you say that all but $599 billion will be covered, that means that Bernie's plan will cover $2T. You admit that the taxpayer and employer cost will only
total $0.675T. Therefore, Bernie's health insurance program will save us 2 - .675= $1.325T.

Now you're babbling. Bernie's plan is $.6T short EVERY year and not paid for.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ch-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/

(etc., blah blah, copied and pasted as usual)

I already knew you're no good with numbers, but answering "blah blah" to my numerical proof that your previous post proves you wrong is...what I expect from someone who thinks that climate scientists are crooks out to make money.

 

[riverman]

More babbling.

I don't care as long as the top 1% aren't crowding out everyone else. They're not.

The only thing going on is people getting their panties in a wad over someone else making more or owning more than you.

Boo fucking hoo

That's a gross exaggeration Denny...people are upset not because someone has more than them but rather that a lot of hard working families are just getting by..and not because they're lazy, but because they are priced out of a middle income life that is increasingly hard to achieve. Wages don't match the cost of living these days..Many of the wealthy are disconnected from that reality.

 

[Denny Crane]

You're really babbling on and on making little sense.

Bernie's plan is $.6T short. It's not saving anyone any money. It's just running up the debt by $.6T every year, and likely bu more than that as time goes by.

For that $2.6T, $2T paid for, we get a worse quality of health care.

Medicare is a massive money pit. So let's make a bigger money pit!

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.c...itymedicare-deficit-72-trillion-and-counting/

The Long-Range Social Security/Medicare Deficit: $72 Trillion And Counting

 

[jlprk]

It's just running up the debt
we get a worse quality of health care.
$72 Trillion

The debt will run up less than it would have. The quality of care will remain the same. Finally, Stockman's $72T warning is what will happen if you win and the status quo remains. The government needs to do something about health care costs, and Republicans aren't up to the complex job..

Usually I'm either asleep or reading science articles, but today I'm here picking on Denny. This won't last.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's a gross exaggeration Denny...people are upset not because someone has more than them but rather that a lot of hard working families are just getting by..and not because they're lazy, but because they are priced out of a middle income life that is increasingly hard to achieve. Wages don't match the cost of living these days..Many of the wealthy are disconnected from that reality.

2/3 of people own homes. That's not just "getting by."

The average price of a home is $175K in the USA, and appreciation historically has been 3.5%. Not only does your mortgage/rent become fixed, it decreases with inflation, and that $175K property doubles in value over 20 years.

I have no sympathy for your argument.

There's simply no crowding out effect of the rich being rich.

 

[Denny Crane]

The debt will run up less than it would have. The quality of care will remain the same. Finally, Stockman's $72T warning is what will happen if you win and the status quo remains. The government needs to do something about health care costs, and Republicans aren't up to the complex job..

Usually I'm either asleep or reading science articles, but today I'm here picking on Denny. This won't last.

The debt will run up $.6T MORE THAN IT WOULD HAVE.

 

[riverman]

2/3 of people own homes. That's not just "getting by."

The average price of a home is $175K in the USA, and appreciation historically has been 3.5%. Not only does your mortgage/rent become fixed, it decreases with inflation, and that $175K property doubles in value over 20 years.

I have no sympathy for your argument.

There's simply no crowding out effect of the rich being rich.

owning your home is different from the bank owning your home though....I own mine but my daughter has a mortgage

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

45% of americans pay no federal income tax. That's bullshit. And i'm so tired of people complaining about college. I went to college between 2005-2009, and i cam out with 8k in debt. Total! Cause im not a dipshit.

I did well in high school, which gave me some scholarships. Got some grants, worked summers during college, and 6 months into my job in 2009 had my college paid off.